Vacant Sees

Counting vacant Latin rite dioceses alone (omitting sundry eparchies, territorial prelatures and so forth), the Holy Father has well over a hundred appointments to make just to catch up on filling the many sees without bishops; as of today, the number of such widowed dioceses is as follows:

39 since start of 2013;

57 since start of 2012 to end of 2012;

18 since start of 2011 to end of 2011;

4 since start of 2010 to end of 2010;

5 since start of 2009 to end of 2009;

2 since start of 2008 to end of 2008.

Here in Australia, Wilcannia-Forbes has been vacant for over four years now (why Cardinal Ouellet didn't decide to suppress it I cannot tell), Canberra-Goulburn has been a year without an archbishop, and three dioceses – Lismore, Rockhampton and Hobart – have ordinaries who have passed retirement age; in the case of Hobart, my own archdiocese, poor Archbishop Doyle has been waiting for a successor for more than eighteen months.

I recall another prelate saying to me over a decade ago, "Where will the next generation of bishops come from?", meaning that those priests in the usual age range for promotion were by and large formed in the worst years of the postconciliar chaos, prior to the reform of seminary life carried out during the nineties and more recently. We don't need any more men like Morris, late of Toowoomba, who was damnably described by Benedict XVI as lacking the theological acumen necessary for a bishop (a polite way of characterizing his gormless heterodoxy).

Pray for good and holy priests to be appointed, and that the Holy Ghost grace them to become yet holier as bishops yet.

Let's Rationalize Dioceses

Australia has too many dioceses - as should be clear to Blind Freddy, most of the country dioceses are unviable, having small populations, hardly any priests, few prospects of local vocations, and a general dearth of talent.  I suspect that the reason that several of them have remained vacant for over a year after their bishops retired is that no one offered them is willing to take them.  As should be obvious, the number of priests worthy to be made bishops now and in the future is very small, given the poor quality of Australian clergy, and this simply compounds the problem.

For a start, Sale diocese is only viable because two-thirds of its population reside in the burgeoning south-east suburbs of greater Melbourne: since the people there are in every sense Melburnians, it is ridiculous to have them look to Sale in Gippsland.  Better to reamalgamate Sale with Melbourne, and soon enough merge Ballaarat and Sandhurst (Bendigo) with Melbourne as well.  As for Hobart - after the retirement of its current incumbent - it can easily be run from Melbourne via a fax machine, as a number of priests once told me.

If in any of these dioceses there were oodles of practising Catholics, and a supply of home-grown vocations, of course they would be viable: but there aren't, so they're not.

For similar reasons, Adelaide should have Port Pirie given back to it; and Perth should retake Geraldton and Bunbury, while Broome could be given to Darwin (better still, the latter pair, by reason of their remoteness, should be downgraded to Apostolic Vicariates).

Now, I don't know much about Queensland, apart from it lacking any faithful priests or bishops apparently! - but, since it is more decentralized than other States, I assume that it needs more than one diocese (Brisbane).

In New South Wales, that dreadful and badly run diocese of Broken Bay should be merged back into Sydney forthwith.  However, beyond that I don't really know; some of the country dioceses are doing alright (e.g. Wagga Wagga, those in New England), while Wollongong, being in essence a city diocese, I assume is large enough to be self-supporting.  All agree that Wilcannia-Forbes and several of its neighbours won't last much longer, though: and these should be merged with other dioceses forthwith.  Why waste time?

Comments, please!